# Politically Correct Stupidity: Episode 3,872,390,576 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768 "2010-08-19T18:32:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/61 "2010-08-19T21:56:00Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > [@markdash](#): > > > > That’s the rub, isn’t it? Defining what constitutes a BFOQ? > > > > The question isn’t whether there exists a right for employers to discriminate based on BFOQs, but whether wearing a hajib violates that. > > Well, once it’s shown that the employment practice falls disproportionately on members of a particular religion, the burden of persuasion transfers to those who assert that it is a BFOQ. And “brand management,” which seems like a clever way of saying “'cause we want to,” doesn’t really carry that burden. It would be interesting to hear if there has been instances of Jewish employees who wished to wear yarmulkes, or the rather stylish hats often seen on Hasidic Jews. But I would venture to guess that it falls equally on all religions who wish to wear specific exterior clothing. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/62 "2010-08-19T21:59:18Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > But I would venture to guess that it falls equally on all religions who wish to wear specific exterior clothing. It is not enough to show that more than one religion is affected. If the employment practice imposes a burden on one or more religious groups more than others, the practice must be related to a BFOQ. It is not an analysis of intent; it is an analysis of results. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/63 "2010-08-19T21:59:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Politically Correct Stupidity: Episode 3,872,390,576 You call that PC? A few days ago a Swedish woman sued a cheese company for having a commercial which included the line: “The taste is in the holes.” Which the woman found very unpleasant and horrible sexists. Now that’s serious PC business right there. Take it from the Swedes. They do it better than all. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/64 "2010-08-19T22:43:14Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > Politically Correct Stupidity: Episode 3,872,390,576 > > You call that PC? A few days ago a Swedish woman sued a cheese company for having a commercial which included the line: “The taste is in the holes.” Which the woman found very unpleasant and horrible sexists. Now that’s serious PC business right there. Take it from the Swedes. They do it better than all. Take it from a self-described expert : if the holes taste like cheese, they’re past their due date. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/65 "2010-08-19T22:53:39Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > So, are you saying that and Italian restaurant could refuse to employ someone who looked, Scandinavian, Chinese or West African as the head waiter? On the grounds that they did not look authentically Italian? I’m not sure how well that would go down in court. I think the Scandinavian would be the least problematic, then the West African, then the Chinese fellow. Some Italians do have blond hair and blue eyes, given it’s proximity to Switzerland and Austria. But dress would probably be just as important. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/66 "2010-08-19T22:54:45Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > Politically Correct Stupidity: Episode 3,872,390,576 > > You call that PC? A few days ago a Swedish woman sued a cheese company for having a commercial which included the line: “The taste is in the holes.” Which the woman found very unpleasant and horrible sexists. Now that’s serious PC business right there. Take it from the Swedes. They do it better than all. Ha! Well that would then be Episode 3,872,390,577. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/67 "2010-08-20T00:04:51Z")
> [@Suil\_Dubh](#): > > -apparently Disney considers it an “on-stage” position I’ve heard it said that Disney considers _all_ their park employees “cast members” (at least this was claimed in a TV documentary I saw about Disney World), so it wouldn’t surprise me if in Disney-speak any position where one interacts with the public is “on stage”. That doesn’t make it so in any reasonable sense of the world. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney’s position is somewhat more reasonable than the one articulated in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/68 "2010-08-20T01:22:54Z")
Did this woman win her lawsuit? What is the complaint? Someone once again sued anyone for anything. Without the verdict how can anybody draw a conclusion? I would agree that some jobs may involve a reasonable dress code. Does someone have a different viewpoint? So lets sum this up. Someone has an opinion about the subject of dress requirements for jobs that is different from the OP’s. Therefore, the sky is falling. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/69 "2010-08-20T02:20:51Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > It’s a Disney hotel, I would think that Disney would have the right to enforce a dress code. However, if the Employee Handbook doesn’t already have a dress code, it’s going to look bad if they start enforcing one on her, now. Exactly. If there is a regular official dress code, one that is known and has been in effect, then it is part of the regular work conditions, the conditions of employment. If it only applies to her, or if it just now started (because of only her) then there is a problem. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/70 "2010-08-20T02:27:50Z")
Just a few random questions I thought of while reading through this: If someone showed up dressed like a ‘gangsta’ (no shirt, hat on sideways, pants down to their knees, tatoos, gold necklaces, flashing gang signs, etc.) then would their workplace be justified in sending them home to change, or at least shoving them into the back room? Somehow Hooters manages to keep the small breasted women out of sight and not get sued into bankruptcy. Which always stuck me as a lot more discriminatory than if you can wear obvious signs of your religion or not. How does Hooters manage to not get sued by small tittied women anyway? Does a Jew have a right to work in a pork processing plant and refuse to do anything that they think would violate kosher laws? Could a stripper wear a hajib, refuse to take it off, and remain a stripper? At what point is it reasonable to just shrug your shoulders and go ‘your religion just ain’t compatible with this job’? Disney does have some arabic themed spots. Anything involving Aladdin, Epcot center has at least one themed area that Muslim dress wouldn’t be out of character in, it wouldn’t be too hard to theme a hajib into a pirate headscarf although it’s an open question on how acceptable that’d be, and, of course, there’s always the option of working where customers won’t see. It seems to me that the problem is not that Disney won’t allow the hajib, but that it isn’t allowed in that specific position and the woman refused to work at alternative position. In general I’d support Disney’s side on this. Companies have always had the ability to enforce dress to present a certain image. There is some balancing to that of course, companies don’t have total freedom in controlling dress. However this doesn’t sound like the company went out of line. They have a general dress code that specifically covered what to do in cases of religious dress. They were working with the woman on alternatives that would be acceptable. Then she goes and wears the thing anyway, knowing it is against company policy and would probably get her in trouble. Absent more damning facts that I’ve heard in this thread, Disney actually acted kinder than I’d expect. Most companies would fire you if you willingly and knowingly violated their rules despite that they were trying to work with you for alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/71 "2010-08-20T02:33:38Z")
If I wanted to work at a bank they wouldn’t let me come into work with my sleeves rolled up, flashing my tattoos, my hair styled in a Mohawk. The bank can’t help that I’m a member of my culture any more than Disney can help that this woman is a member of her religion. But surely my tattoos and hair have nothing to do with my duties? Wrong. As an employee you are representing your company. I hope this woman’s case gets drop-kicked. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/72 "2010-08-20T03:34:15Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > … it sounds like Walt’s special magic has dissipated a bit. Freezer burn. ☹ CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/73 "2010-08-20T04:37:51Z")
To help give me some perspective on this issue, I tried to imagine Ms. Boudal sueing Hooters because she wanted to wear a head scarf while working as a hostess. Sure, I think Disney is being silly, but they do have the right, and she’s being a bit of a shit about it. “Oh dear, working in the back with those Mexicans is so humiliating.” Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/74 "2010-08-20T05:04:38Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > If I wanted to work at a bank they wouldn’t let me come into work with my sleeves rolled up, flashing my tattoos, my hair styled in a Mohawk. The bank can’t help that I’m a member of my culture any more than Disney can help that this woman is a member of her religion. But surely my tattoos and hair have nothing to do with my duties? Wrong. As an employee you are representing your company. I hope this woman’s case gets drop-kicked. Could you tell me which part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against “subculture” discrimination? You know, akin to the protection it affords for religious practices? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/75 "2010-08-20T05:20:14Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Could you tell me which part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against “subculture” discrimination? You know, akin to the protection it affords for religious practices? If a person is unable to meet the requirements of a job, the Civil Rights Act does not require an employer to hire them anyway. Disney did not send her home because she was a Muslim. She was a Muslim without consequence during the hiring process and presumably worked as a Muslim, again without consequence. She decided not to follow the dress code policy, and the same punishment for anyone not following dress code policy was applied to her. Disney doesn’t care WHY she wasn’t following dress code, and that is why the Civil Rights Act doesn’t protect her in this case. In fact, I’m surprised they even gave her the option of working out of dress code as long as it was out of public view. It sounds like Disney tried to be extra accommodating for her. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/76 "2010-08-20T05:34:57Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > > Could you tell me which part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against “subculture” discrimination? You know, akin to the protection it affords for religious practices? > > If a person is unable to meet the requirements of a job, the Civil Rights Act does not require an employer to hire them anyway. Disney did not send her home because she was a Muslim. She was a Muslim without consequence during the hiring process and presumably worked as a Muslim, again without consequence. She decided not to follow the dress code policy, and the same punishment for anyone not following dress code policy was applied to her. Disney doesn’t care WHY she wasn’t following dress code, and that is why the Civil Rights Act doesn’t protect her in this case. In fact, I’m surprised they even gave her the option of working out of dress code as long as it was out of public view. It sounds like Disney tried to be extra accommodating for her. This point has already been addressed repeatedly above. A claim of employment discrimination can come in one of two forms: discriminatory intent and disparate impact. A claim for disparate impact will lie if the practice particularly burdens members of one or more religious groups and is not related to a bona fide occupational qualification. This is the case even if the employment practice was put in place without any intent to discriminate. If you are not going to familiarize yourself with the law that you’re making pronouncements about, at least familiarize yourself with the information already provided in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Khaki\_Campbell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Khaki\_Campbell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khaki_Campbell)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/77 "2010-08-20T05:59:09Z")
It seems that Disney HR goes to great lengths to please and keep that muslim. I guess an Odinist guy who wanted to grow a beard who have been fired on the spot. So yes, Muzzney doesn’t want to be labelled TEH RAYSCIST OMG. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/78 "2010-08-20T06:24:39Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > A claim for disparate impact will lie if the practice particularly burdens members of one or more religious groups and is not related to a bona fide occupational qualification. This is the case even if the employment practice was put in place without any intent to discriminate. Is it your position that a dress code which does not allow things to be worn on the head has a disparate impact on Muslims? I know quite a few redneck Nascar fans who would happily wear a ball cap to work if it didn’t violate the dress code who would disagree with you. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/79 "2010-08-20T06:28:53Z")
> [@godix](#): > > Just a few random questions I thought of while reading through this: > > If someone showed up dressed like a ‘gangsta’ (no shirt, hat on sideways, pants down to their knees, tatoos, gold necklaces, flashing gang signs, etc.) then would their workplace be justified in sending them home to change, or at least shoving them into the back room? gangsta is not a religion, and is not mentioned in the civil rights act. > [@](#): > > Somehow Hooters manages to keep the small breasted women out of sight and not get sued into bankruptcy. Which always stuck me as a lot more discriminatory than if you can wear obvious signs of your religion or not. How does Hooters manage to not get sued by small tittied women anyway? you go to different hooters than I do. > [@](#): > > Does a Jew have a right to work in a pork processing plant and refuse to do anything that they think would violate kosher laws? Could a stripper wear a hajib, refuse to take it off, and remain a stripper? At what point is it reasonable to just shrug your shoulders and go ‘your religion just ain’t compatible with this job’? the point where it isn’t compatible with the job. The act says the employer must make reasonable accomidations. Allowing an employee to wear a scarf is not going to significantly impact disney. > [@](#): > > Disney does have some arabic themed spots. Anything involving Aladdin, Epcot center has at least one themed area that Muslim dress wouldn’t be out of character in, it wouldn’t be too hard to theme a hajib into a pirate headscarf although it’s an open question on how acceptable that’d be, and, of course, there’s always the option of working where customers won’t see. It seems to me that the problem is not that Disney won’t allow the hajib, but that it isn’t allowed in that specific position and the woman refused to work at alternative position. You cant force people to hide in the back room because of race or religioin. > [@](#): > > In general I’d support Disney’s side on this. Companies have always had the ability to enforce dress to present a certain image. There is some balancing to that of course, companies don’t have total freedom in controlling dress. However this doesn’t sound like the company went out of line. They have a general dress code that specifically covered what to do in cases of religious dress. They were working with the woman on alternatives that would be acceptable. Then she goes and wears the thing anyway, knowing it is against company policy and would probably get her in trouble. Absent more damning facts that I’ve heard in this thread, Disney actually acted kinder than I’d expect. Most companies would fire you if you willingly and knowingly violated their rules despite that they were trying to work with you for alternatives. You may support disneys side, but the law doesn’t. Dress code does not trump civil rights act. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/80 "2010-08-20T07:00:11Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > You’re avoiding the question: to what legitimate end can an employer restrict the wearing of a hijab? “It doesn’t match our brand” is far too vague to be anything better than “We don’t like hijabs”, which in turn is no more a justification than “We don’t like Muslims”. IOW, there needs to be a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification that justifies discrimination. Or do I have this right, lawyers? It would fall under a dress code without any religious symbols such as a cross or skull cap. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768.md?page=5)